Delete Customer Blockchain Wallet

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the success response ('204 No Content'), which is useful beyond annotations, but says nothing about irreversibility, cascading effects, or whether the wallet must be empty first.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action in one sentence, followed by a compact args list and return note. The args list duplicates the schema, a minor redundancy, but nothing is wasted or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, two-parameter deletion tool with full annotations and a documented 204 response, the essentials are present. However, it omits preconditions and side effects (funds, linked wallets), which matter most for a destructive operation, leaving a clear gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description merely restates them as 'the customer id' and 'the blockchain wallet id' without adding format, source, or lookup guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('customer's blockchain wallet'), which is more precise than a generic delete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as ashar_delete_customer_custodial_wallet or ashar_delete_customer_bank_account, but the resource noun is specific enough to route correctly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., custodial vs. blockchain wallet deletion), nor any prerequisites such as wallet balance being zero or required permissions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.